Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 12 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Vin Maratty wrote:LBird wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:But he didn't undermine the method, or the philosophy, he simply disproved the existing model. I see you're back to arguing by authority.
YMS, I can merely repeat what I've said to DJP.If you're happy, why not leave me and this thread to the 'loonies', and go and do something else, more productive for yourself?
Did you know you can send a PM if you wish to speak directly and only to one forum member?
It's not for one forum member, Vin. It's for you, too. And any others who wish to continue the charade that science has a solid philosophical basis with 'materialism'.Why do you all continue to post, when none of you are really interested in discussing the problem?If there is no 'problem', why waste your time?
LBird wrote:And any others who wish to continue the charade that science has a solid philosophical basis with 'materialism'.That is what Sheldrake states, too, but I see no scientific evidence to support such an assertion.
Vin Maratty wrote:LBird wrote:And any others who wish to continue the charade that science has a solid philosophical basis with 'materialism'.That is what Sheldrake states, too, but I see no scientific evidence to support such an assertion.
If you think I'm arguing the same as Sheldrake, even when I've specifically warned against Sheldrake and his ilk, and proposed an alternative to Sheldrake, then you'll have to stick with your argument that 'LBird states the same as Sheldrake'. That's fine by me.Is there anyone out their who thinks that what I'm saying is different to, and critical of, Sheldrake? If not, fine, don't respond, and the thread will die a natural death.
All I'm looking for is some argument, rather than assertion. In what way did Einstein undermine (rather than confirm) the scientific method?In the past I have internet arguments that have gone on for years, only for both participants to begind to realise we weren't arguing what we were arguing about, and that both sides had merits.I've tried discussing what science is, the historical evolution of the words real and true, the parable of the five wise monkeys. There must be some point of reference we can find that clarifies the matter at hand.
Young Master Smeet wrote:There must be some point of reference we can find that clarifies the matter at hand.OK. Do you think there is a problem with 'science'?I do.Rovelli the physicist does.Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend and Lakatos do.Einstein did.If you don't share this 'point of reference', YMS, then there's nothing to 'clarify'.I want to discuss how Marx's belief that the scientific method can be unified can help to solve the widely perceived problems with science.So, it's only worth continuing to discuss with me, IF you want to solve science's problems from a Communist perspective.If you can't see a problem, or you can but you don't think Marx has anything useful to say, or if you're not even a Communist that thinks revolution will involve a revolution in science too, then I don't think we have any common 'point of reference'.I can't say it any more comradely than that.
Young Master Smeet wrote:What do you think the problem is?I'm going to drop out, now, YMS.If you can't tell me what you think the problem is, there is no 'point of reference' between us.Thanks anyway.
I think I know what you think the problem is, but I don't know if what I think you think is what you think, I know only you know what you think, and I can only know what I think you are saying you think, but only if you think of saying it. So I say you should say what you think, then I'll have my say. Whaddaya say?
LBird wrote:Rovelli the physicist does.Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend and Lakatos do.Einstein did.Any of these agree with you about a 'proletarian science'. I would appreciate some references. My own opinion is that these 'bourgeois' scientists had a lot of interesting things to say.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I think I know what you think the problem is, but I don't know if what I think you think is what you think, I know only you know what you think, and I can only know what I think you are saying you think, but only if you think of saying it. So I say you should say what you think, then I'll have my say. Whaddaya say?You're going to have to read what I've already said numerous times, on this thread and many others, YMS.If those continuous statements have made no impression on you up to now, then I don't think that me merely repeating myself again now will get us anywhere.
Vin Maratty wrote:Any of these agree with you about a 'proletarian science'.No. They are not Communists.
VM wrote:My own opinion is that these 'bourgeois' scientists had a lot of interesting things to say.That's my opinion, too.
YMS Post #19 wrote:So, there are more OED definitions, but the broad thrust is of reliable systematic knowledge, which we could roughly formulate as knowledge derived for and with an Other (in) mind: that does not exist just for me but for an Other. That differs from language, the shaping of my thoughts into a form I can transmit them to an Other in as much asthe uidea was created with the other in mind. The language games of science are highly structured with definite registers.Rovelli wrote:Science is not about certainty. Science is about finding the most reliable way of thinking at the present level of knowledge. Science is extremely reliable; it’s not certain. In fact, not only is it not certain, but it’s the lack of certainty that grounds it. Scientific ideas are credible not because they are sure but because they’re the ones that have survived all the possible past critiques, and they’re the most credible because they were put on the table for everybody’s criticism.Well, stuff me sideways, if that isn't exactly what i've been saying. It seems that Rovelli has been agreeing with me all along!http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118655/theoretical-phyisicist-explains-why-science-not-about-certaintyAs I also said, the etymology of "Real" is "Royal" (i.e. real things hadve the royal seal of approval) and "true" just meant "loyal"). Those theories or ideas that are most loyal to our best efforts of experience are true. We have to live in the world, and act, and must treat our knowledge accordingly, else we'd be left tryign to walk through walls, ebcause we can never know that that is impossible.
Interestingly, I'd have thought this book:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Peoples-History-Science-Midwives-Mechanicks/dp/1560257482Which goes in the opposite direction to Rovelli would be more apt: Clifford argues that most great scientific discoveries were made by working people and common folk, and that the 'great thinkers' are mostly great appropriators.
One reviewer wrote:What Conner shows is rooted in the anthropologically sound understanding that science is a collective process of comprehending and changing the world around us. This is hardly to deny the fact that there have been outstanding and "craftsman-like" individuals who have sythesized the work of others to develop new insights and make exciting breakthroughs. (For every such genius, of course, there are a number of intellectual thieves — some of whom fare badly in Conner's book — but that it is another matter.) Unlike so many intellectual historians, however, Conner's focus is on the collective process, the unacknowledged heroines and heroes, Conner's "Miners, Midwives, and 'Low Mechaniks'" (as well as hunters and gatherers and early horticulturalists) whose efforts were essential to the forward movement of science.Rovelli wrote:Rovelli wrote:Science is not about certainty. Science is about finding the most reliable way of thinking at the present level of knowledge. Science is extremely reliable; it’s not certain. In fact, not only is it not certain, but it’s the lack of certainty that grounds it. Scientific ideas are credible not because they are sure but because they’re the ones that have survived all the possible past critiques, and they’re the most credible because they were put on the table for everybody’s criticism.Young Master Smeet wrote:Well, stuff me sideways, if that isn't exactly what i've been saying. It seems that Rovelli has been agreeing with me all along!YMS it's interesting you seem to agree with Rovelli and the lack of certainty or "truth" in science, yet you have no difficulty with pronouncing the below bold statement.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I introduced maths because the standard of proof in maths is very high, and when mathematicians say something is true, it is.I've been checking out some mathematics forums and apart from being baffled by the subjects, what comes across quite clearly is the disagreement. So much for mathematicians being privy to some universal truth.Mathematics is a language and like all languages, is subject to translation, alteration, spelling mistakes and ultimately bias and disagreement. This is precsely what we find in the field of mathematics and science.If "The truth is out there", why is there so much disagreement? Because we can't seperate ourselves from what we seek to explain.
SocialistPunk wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:I introduced maths because the standard of proof in maths is very high, and when mathematicians say something is true, it is.I've been checking out some mathematics forums and apart from being baffled by the subjects, what comes across quite clearly is the disagreement. So much for mathematicians being privy to some universal truth.
I think you have to appreciate the difference between a priori (true by definition) and a posteriori (dependent of experience or evidence) based truths.The truth of "1+1=2" or "all bachelors are unmarried men" is determined by the definition of "1" or "bachelor" not by empirical inspection of every instance of 1+1 or by following around every bachelor to see if they have a wife.The only kind of truths we can have something approaching absolute certainty of are a priori truths, like those you have in maths and logic.a posteriori truths are much messier because we can never have a complete or absolute knowledge of the external world, or separate ourselves from our observations from it as you quite rightly said.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.